PS YC HOLOGICA L SC IENCE
Research Article
The Constructive, Destructive,
and Reconstructive Power of
Social Norms
P. Wesley Schultz,1 Jessica M. Nolan,2 Robert B. Cialdini,3 Noah J. Goldstein,3 and Vladas Griskevicius3
1
California State University, San Marcos; 2University of Arkansas; and 3Arizona State University
ABSTRACT—Despite
a long tradition of effectiveness in
laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed
success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some
studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical
account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field experiment in which normative messages were used to promote
household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive
normative message detailing average neighborhood usage
produced either desirable energy savings or the undesirable boomerang effect, depending on whether households
were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as
predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social
approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang
effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed
success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and
suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted.
After several decades of controversy over the role of norms in
predicting behavior, the research has clearly established that
social norms not only spur but also guide action in direct and
meaningful ways (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003; Cialdini,
Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Darley & Latané, 1970; Goldstein,
Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2006; Kerr, 1995; Terry & Hogg,
2001). Given this asserted power of social norms, during the past
decade there has been a surge of programs that have delivered
normative information as a primary tool for changing socially
significant behaviors, such as alcohol consumption, drug use,
disordered eating, gambling, littering, and recycling (e.g.,
Donaldson, Graham, & Hansen, 1994; Larimer & Neighbors,
2003; Neighbors, Larimer, & Lewis, 2004; Schultz, 1999; Schultz,
Address correspondence to Wesley Schultz, Department of Psychology, California State University, San Marcos, CA 92078, e-mail:
wschultz@csusm.edu.
Volume 18—Number 5
Tabanico, & Rendón, in press). Such social-norms marketing
campaigns have emerged as an alternative to more traditional
approaches (e.g., information campaigns, moral exhortation, fearinducing messages) designed to reduce undesirable conduct
(Donaldson, Graham, Piccinin, & Hansen, 1995).
The rationale for the social-norms marketing approach is
based on two consistent findings: (a) The majority of individuals
overestimate the prevalence of many undesirable behaviors,
such as alcohol use among peers (e.g., Borsari & Carey, 2003;
Prentice & Miller, 1993), and (b) individuals use their perceptions of peer norms as a standard against which to compare their
own behaviors (e.g., Baer, Stacy, & Larimer, 1991; Clapp &
McDonell, 2000; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). Social-norms
marketing campaigns seek to reduce the occurrence of deleterious behaviors by correcting targets’ misperceptions regarding
the behaviors’ prevalence. The perception of prevalence is
commonly referred to as the descriptive norm governing a behavior (Cialdini et al., 1991).
Social-norms marketing campaigns have been deemed so full
of promise that nearly half of 746 U.S. colleges and universities
surveyed by the Harvard School of Public Health in 2002 had
adopted them in some form to combat collegiate binge drinking
(Wechsler et al., 2003). However, despite the widespread
adoption of social-norms marketing campaigns, evidence for the
success of such programs has been surprisingly mixed. Although
many studies appear to confirm the effectiveness of the social
marketing approach (e.g., Agostinelli, Brown, & Miller, 1995;
Haines & Spear, 1996; Neighbors et al., 2004), other studies
have failed to produce substantial changes in behavior (e.g.,
Clapp, Lange, Russell, Shillington, & Voas, 2003; Granfield,
2005; Peeler, Far, Miller, & Brigham, 2000; Russell, Clapp, &
DeJong, 2005; Werch et al., 2000). In fact, some studies indicate
that social-norms marketing campaigns have actually increased
the undesirable behaviors and misperceptions they set out to
decrease (e.g., Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005; Wechsler et al.,
2003; Werch et al., 2000).
Copyright r 2007 Association for Psychological Science
429
Social Norms
A closer analysis of social-norms theory and research provides
a potential explanation for the lack of effects and suggests the
possibility of boomerang effects. Descriptive norms provide a
standard from which people do not want to deviate. Because
people measure the appropriateness of their behavior by how far
away they are from the norm, being deviant is being above or
below the norm. For example, although the majority of college
students do overestimate the prevalence of alcohol consumption
on campus (see Berkowitz, 2004, for a review), a substantial
proportion of them—as many as one fifth by some estimates (e.g.,
Perkins et al., 2005) and nearly one half by others (e.g., Wechsler
& Kuo, 2000)—actually underestimate its prevalence. Because a
social-norms marketing campaign provides specific descriptive
normative information that can serve as a point of comparison
for an individual’s own behavior, the descriptive norm acts as a
magnet for behavior for individuals both above and below the
average. Consequently, a college campaign targeting alcohol
consumption might motivate students who previously consumed
less alcohol than the norm to consume more. Thus, although
providing descriptive normative information may decrease an
undesirable behavior among individuals who perform that behavior at a rate above the norm, the same message may actually
serve to increase the undesirable behavior among individuals who
perform that behavior at a rate below the norm.
Social-norms campaigns are intended to reduce problem behaviors (or increase prosocial behavior) by conveying the message that deleterious behaviors are occurring less often than
most people think. But for individuals who already abstain from
the undesirable behavior, such normative information can produce unintended and undesirable boomerang effects. Is there
a way to eliminate them? According to the focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini et al., 1991), there is a second type of
social norm, in addition to the descriptive norm, that has a
powerful influence on behavior—the injunctive norm. Whereas
descriptive norms refer to perceptions of what is commonly done
in a given situation, injunctive norms refer to perceptions of
what is commonly approved or disapproved within the culture
(Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Focus theory predicts that if
only one of the two types of norms is prominent in an individual’s
consciousness, it will exert the stronger influence on behavior
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Thus, in situations in which
descriptive normative information may normally produce an
undesirable boomerang effect, it is possible that adding an
injunctive message indicating that the desired behavior is
approved may prevent that effect.
THE CURRENT RESEARCH
The purpose of the current research was to explore how normative information may differentially affect an important social
behavior depending on whether the message recipients’ behavior is above or below the norm. In a California community, we
430
performed a field experiment examining the effects of normative
information on household energy consumption. All households
received feedback about how much energy they had consumed
in previous weeks and descriptive normative information about
the average consumption of other households in their neighborhood. Households were divided into two categories at each
observation period: those with energy consumption above average for the community and those with energy consumption
below average for the community. Households were matched
on a baseline measure of energy consumption, and then half of
the households were randomly assigned to receive only the
descriptive normative information. The other half received the
descriptive normative information plus an injunctive message
conveying that their energy consumption was either approved or
disapproved; specifically, households that consumed less than
the average received a message displaying a positively valenced
emoticon ( ), whereas those that consumed more than the average received a message displaying a negatively valenced
emoticon ( ). The dependent measure was residents’ subsequent
actual household energy consumption.
We had three main predictions. First, we expected that descriptive normative information would decrease energy consumption in households consuming more energy than their
neighborhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the
constructive power of social norms, demonstrating that normative
information can facilitate proenvironmental behavior. Second, we
expected that descriptive normative information would increase
energy consumption—that is, produce an undesirable boomerang
effect—in households consuming less energy than their neighborhood average. Such a result would be indicative of the
destructive power of social norms, demonstrating that a well-intended application of normative information can actually serve to
decrease proenvironmental behavior. Third, we expected that
providing both descriptive normative information and an injunctive message that other people approve of low-consumption
behavior would prevent the undesirable boomerang effect in
households consuming less energy than their neighborhood average; that is, we expected these households to continue to consume at low rates. Such a result would be indicative of the
reconstructive power of injunctive messages to eliminate the
untoward effects of a descriptive norm.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 290 households in San Marcos, CA, with visible
energy meters. They were selected from three census-block
groups and notified about the study through a mailed letter.
(Although they were offered the opportunity not to participate,
none did so.) The study was a 2 (feedback: descriptive norm only
vs. descriptivee plus injunctive information) 2 (consumption:
above- vs. below-average energy consumption) 3 (time: base-
Volume 18—Number 5
P.W. Schultz et al.
line, short-term follow-up, longer-term follow-up) mixed-factorial
design. Feedback and consumption were between-participants
factors, and time was a within-participants factor.
Procedure
Prior to any experimental intervention, trained research assistants read the households’ electricity meters twice within a
2-week period.1 The difference between these two readings was
used to establish an initial baseline measure of daily energy
usage for each household. Households were matched on
this baseline measure and randomly assigned to either the
descriptive-norm-only condition or the descriptive-plusinjunctive-information condition. This initial baseline energy
usage was used for the descriptive normative feedback and to
determine the injunctive feedback for the first written message
(i.e., whether the household consumed more or less than the
average). Two weeks later, researchers took a third meter reading
and left written messages on residents’ doors. These doorhangers
reported energy consumption from the baseline period. One week
after that, a second doorhanger was distributed; this message
contained normative feedback that reported energy usage between the second baseline reading and distribution of the first
doorhanger. Researchers also took a fourth meter reading while
distributing this second doorhanger. We took a final meter reading
3 weeks after the distribution of the second feedback message.
Short-term change in electricity usage was calculated by
subtracting the meter reading taken the day the first message
was distributed from the reading taken the day the second
message was distributed. Longer-term change in electricity
usage was calculated by subtracting the meter reading taken the
day of the second message from the final meter reading.
Intervention
After the baseline period, households received a total of two
messages left at their doors. For households in the descriptivenorm-only condition, each message contained (a) handwritten
information about how much energy (in kilowatt-hours per day)
they had used in the previous week (or weeks for the second
doorhanger), (b) descriptive normative information about the
actual energy consumption of the average household in their
neighborhood during that same period (in kilowatt-hours per
day), and (c) preprinted suggestions for how to conserve energy
(e.g., use fans instead of air conditioning). Households in the
descriptive-plus-injunctive-information condition received the
same information as did those in the descriptive-norm-only
group, with one key addition: If the household had consumed
less than the average for the neighborhood, the researcher drew
1
During the training of our research team, we assessed the reliability of our
meter readings. On 157 occasions, two research assistants were assigned to read
the same meter. These independent readings correlated at r 5 .999. In addition,
during our training period, we were able to obtain electricity-usage data from
the local utility company for 92 houses in this study. The correlation between
this measure and our readings was .96 and .99 on 2 separate months.
Volume 18—Number 5
a happy face ( ); if the household had consumed more than the
average, the researcher drew a sad face ( ). The valence of the
emoticon was used to communicate an injunctive message of
approval or disapproval for the amount of energy being consumed. All messages were clearly identified with the university
logo and a telephone number that could be used to contact our
research team with questions or concerns.
Results
Of the 290 households, half were randomly assigned to receive the
combined message (descriptive-norm feedback plus the injunctive emoticon), and the other half were randomly assigned to
receive only the descriptive-norm feedback. Three households
called to withdraw from the study following the initial normativefeedback distribution, resulting in a final sample of 287. At each
measurement period, daily household energy consumption was
positively skewed (M 5 15.03, SD 5 7.10, skew 5 1.39, range 5
1.63–35.88), resulting in more households below the mean than
above. Although this introduced slightly unequal sample sizes for
the above- and below-average groups, we used the mean as the
dividing point for consumption because we believed it would
provide a more meaningful number than other measures of central
tendency when reported to residents.
Short-Term Change in Electricity Usage
The primary focus of our analyses was change in energy consumption, and our key interest was in the pair-wise comparison
of baseline and follow-up usage in each of the four betweensubjects cells (see Fig. 1a). For households that consumed more
than the average during the baseline period, the descriptivenorm-only feedback produced a significant decrease in energy
consumption relative to the baseline (M 5 20.25, SE 5 1.03 vs.
baseline M 5 21.47, SE 5 0.89; n 5 64), t(63) 5 2.17, prep 5 .93,
d 5 0.55. Figure 1a shows this significant change as a reduction
of 1.22 kWh in daily energy consumption. Thus, the descriptive
normative information led to the desired decrease in energy
consumption for the households that were consuming more than
the average for their neighborhood. This result illustrates the
constructive potential of social norms.
In contrast, for households that were below the mean on
baseline energy consumption, the descriptive-norm-only message produced an increase in energy consumption from baseline
(M 5 11.27, SE 5 0.46 vs. baseline M 5 10.38, SE 5 0.33; n 5
79), t(78) 5 2.28, prep 5 .94, d 5 0.52. This change is shown in
Figure 1a as an increase of 0.89 kWh in daily energy consumption. Thus, the descriptive normative information led to an
undesired increase in energy consumption for the households that
were consuming less than the average for the neighborhood—a
clear example of the destructive potential of social norms.
When the injunctive message was added to the descriptive
normative feedback, households that were consuming less energy than average continued to consume at the desirable low rate
431
Social Norms
Fig. 1. Difference between baseline daily energy consumption and daily
energy consumption during the (a) short-term and (b) longer-term followup periods. Results are shown for the four conditions created by crossing
baseline energy consumption (above vs. below average) with feedback
received (descriptive normative feedback only vs. descriptive feedback
combined with an injunctive message). Error bars show the 95% confidence interval of the pair-wise difference between usage during the follow-up period and during the baseline.
(M 5 10.58, SE 5 0.38 vs. baseline M 5 10.34, SE 5 0.33; n 5
81), t(80) 5 1.04, n.s. That is, the undesirable boomerang effect
of increased usage among households low in energy consumption was eliminated when an injunctive message was added to
the descriptive normative information. This result highlights the
reconstructive potential of social norms. Finally, for households
consuming above the average, the combined descriptive-plusinjunctive message served to decrease energy consumption
(M 5 18.91, SE 5 0.73 vs. baseline M 5 20.63, SE 5 0.64;
n 5 63), t(62) 5 2.49, prep 5 .96, d 5 0.63.
Longer-Term Changes in Energy Consumption
Of the 287 households in the study, 41 were inconsistently above
or below the average across the 2 weeks of normative feedback
432
and were therefore excluded from the analyses of longer-term
change. There were no significant differences in inconsistency
rate across the four experimental conditions.
Our analyses of longer-term change followed those for shortterm change, focusing primarily on planned pair-wise comparisons of baseline and follow-up energy usage. As shown in
Figure lb, the outcomes were nearly identical to those for the
shorter-term measure. For those households that were high
in energy consumption at baseline, the descriptive-norm-only
message continued to produce the (constructive) decrease in
energy consumption, although the difference was not conventionally significant (baseline M 5 22.32, SE 5 1.05 vs. longerterm M 5 21.29, SE 5 0.92; n 5 52), t(51) 5 1.45, n.s. For those
households initially low in energy consumption, the descriptivenorm-only condition produced a significant increase in electricity usage (longer-term M 5 11.13, SE 5 0.44 vs. baseline
M 5 10.15, SE 5 0.34; n 5 68), t(67) 5 2.42, prep 5 .95,
d 5 0.59. That is, the descriptive normative message continued
to produce the (destructive) boomerang effect. However, the
combined injunctive-plus-descriptive message produced no
change from baseline for low-consuming households (longerterm M 5 10.14, SE 5 0.37 vs. baseline M 5 10.04, SE 5 0.35;
n 5 70), t(69) 5 0.64, n.s., again illustrating the reconstructive
power of normative information when an injunctive element
is added to the descriptive normative feedback. Finally,
for households that initially consumed more energy than the
neighborhood average, the combined descriptive-plus-injunctive feedback continued to produce a significant decrease
in energy consumption relative to the baseline (baseline
M 5 20.62, SE 5 0.64 vs. longer-term M 5 19.39, SE 5 0.62;
n 5 56), t(55) 5 2.13, prep 5 .93, d 5 0.58. Overall, the results
for both the short-term measure and the longer-term measure
were consistent with predictions.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this experiment are highly consistent with predictions derived from the focus theory of normative conduct
(Cialdini et al., 1991). Providing residents with descriptive
normative information had a dramatically different effect
depending on whether they were initially above or below the
average level of energy consumption in their neighborhood.
Providing high-energy-consuming households with descriptive
normative information regarding the average home energy usage
in their neighborhood constructively decreased energy consumption. In contrast, for households that were initially low in
their base rates of energy consumption, the same descriptive
message produced a destructive boomerang effect, leading to
increased levels of energy consumption. However, adding
an injunctive component to the message proved reconstructive
by buffering this unwelcome boomerang effect. That is, for
people who were initially low in energy consumption, the same
descriptive normative information combined with an injunctive
Volume 18—Number 5
P.W. Schultz et al.
message of approval led to continued consumption at the desirable low rate, rather than a significant move toward the mean.
Moreover, despite concerns that normative interventions have
an effect for only a short time, the longer-term results indicate
that the effects of the normative messages continued to be strong
even 4 weeks after the initial intervention.
These findings provide a potential explanation for the mixed
effects of normative messages in field contexts. Although socialnorm campaigns are typically aimed at individuals whose behavior is less desirable than the norm, the widespread nature of
these campaigns nearly ensures that those whose behavior is
more desirable than the norm will also receive the message. Our
results suggest that for those individuals who tend to engage in
destructive behaviors, a descriptive normative message can be
a guide to engaging in more constructive behavior; in contrast,
for those individuals who already engage in the constructive
behavior, a descriptive normative message can be a spur to
engaging in more destructive behavior. For example, telling
students that a majority of their peers drink ‘‘four or fewer drinks
when they party’’ sends the message that abstaining from
drinking is deviant. Our results demonstrate the potential for
such messages to boomerang, but the results also show that an
injunctive element of approval is reconstructive in its ability to
ameliorate these unwanted effects.
Although the results from our field experiment are quite
clear, there are several aspects that warrant additional comment.
First, we should point out that the descriptive norm produced
the boomerang effect among individuals who were already
engaging in the desired behavior. Thus, the overall impact
of a normative education campaign will depend on the distribution of the behavior in the population; a campaign could
produce an increase, decrease, or no change in the behavior
(the latter being most likely). For example, if the distribution
of the target behavior is strongly skewed in the positive
direction, such that more people are below the norm than above
it, then a normative message might increase the behavior in
aggregate. Second, prior research has suggested that presenting
aligned descriptive and injunctive norms can result in larger
behavioral changes than presenting either type of norm in
isolation (Cialdini, 2003). Our results show this overall pattern,
although the differences were not statistically significant. For
example, in the short term, the reduction in energy usage for
high-consuming households was 1.72 kWh/day in the descriptive-plus-injunctive condition, compared with 1.22 kWh/day in
the descriptive-only condition. Finally, it is useful to consider
potential boundary conditions that might limit the range of
behaviors to which normative social influence would apply. The
target behavior in this study (energy conservation) has a direct
personal benefit (saving money), is private, is reoccurring
(rather than a one-time action), and has widespread social
approval. Although we believe that the current findings will
apply to a range of other behaviors (e.g., alcohol consumption,
seat-belt use, littering, consumer choices, illegal downloading
Volume 18—Number 5
of music), future research should explore the appropriate
boundary conditions.
Acknowledgments—Funding for this study was provided by a
grant from the Hewlett Foundation (2001-7396) and by National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships to the
fourth and fifth authors. Our appreciation goes to Veronica
Briseño, Dulcinea Contreras, Matt Dorlaque, Reginald Hartfield,
Edgar Medina, Laura Murphy, Leezel Nazareno, Rene Quiroz,
Ronald Tilos, Monica Tinajero, and Christina Wade. Portions of
this article were presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Society, Los Angeles, California, May 2005.
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 18–28.
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J., & Miller, W. (1995). Effects of normative
feedback on consumption among heavy drinking college students. Journal of Drug Education, 25, 31–40.
Baer, J.S., Stacy, A., & Larimer, M. (1991). Biases in the perception of
drinking norms among college students. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 52, 580–586.
Berkowitz, A.D. (2004). An overview of the social norms approach. In
L. Lederman & L. Stewart (Eds.), Changing the culture of college
drinking (pp. 193–214). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Borsari, B., & Carey, K. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in
college drinking: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 64, 331–341.
Cialdini, R.B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the
environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12,
105–109.
Cialdini, R.B., & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance
and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–622.
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. (1991). A focus theory of
normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
24, 201–234.
Clapp, J.D., Lange, J.E., Russell, C., Shillington, A., & Voas, R.
(2003). A failed norms social marketing campaign. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 64, 409–414.
Clapp, J.D., & McDonnell, A. (2000). The relationship of perceptions
of alcohol promotion and peer drinking norms to alcohol problems
reported by college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 19–26.
Darley, J.M., & Latané, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior:
Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay &
L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 83–102).
New York: Academic Press.
Donaldson, S.I., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. (1994). Testing the
generalizability of intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 195–216.
Donaldson, S.I., Graham, J.W., Piccinin, A.M., & Hansen, W.B. (1995).
Resistance-skills training and the onset of alcohol use: Evidence
for beneficial and potentially harmful effects in public schools
and in private Catholic schools. Health Psychology, 14, 291–300.
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., & Griskevicius, V. (2006). A room with
a viewpoint: Using normative appeals to motivate environmental
433
Social Norms
conservation in a hotel setting. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Granfield, R. (2005). Alcohol use in college: Limitations on the transformation of social norms. Addiction Research and Theory, 13,
281–292.
Haines, M., & Spear, S. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm:
A strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students.
Journal of American College Health, 45, 134–140.
Kerr, N.L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D. Schroeder (Ed.),
Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 31–
48). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Larimer, M.E., & Neighbors, C. (2003). Normative misperceptions and
the impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on college student
gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17, 235–243.
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M., & Lewis, M. (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: Efficacy of a computerdelivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 434–447.
Peeler, C.M., Far, J., Miller, J., & Brigham, T.A. (2000). An analysis of
the effects of a program to reduce heavy drinking among college
students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 45, 39–54.
Perkins, H.W., & Berkowitz, A.D. (1986). Perceiving the community
norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications
for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 961–976.
Perkins, H.W., Haines, M.P., & Rice, R. (2005). Misperceiving
the college drinking norm and related problems: A nationwide
study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms
and student alcohol misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66,
470–478.
Prentice, D.A., & Miller, D.T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use
on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243–256.
434
Reno, R., Cialdini, R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational
influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 104–112.
Russell, C., Clapp, J.D., & DeJong, W. (2005). ‘‘Done 4’’: Analysis of a
failed social norms marketing campaign. Health Communication,
17, 57–65.
Schultz, P.W. (1999). Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 21, 25–36.
Schultz, P.W., Tabanico, J., & Rendón, T. (in press). Normative beliefs
as agents of influence: Basic process and real-world applications.
In R. Prislin & W. Crano (Eds.), Attitudes and persuasion. New
York: Psychology Press.
Terry, D.J., & Hogg, M.A. (2001). Attitudes, behavior, and social
context: The role of norms and group membership in social influence processes. In J.P. Forgas & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Social
influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 253–270). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Wechsler, H., & Kuo, M. (2000). College students define binge
drinking and estimate its prevalence: Results of a national survey.
Journal of American College Health, 49, 57–60.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T., Lee, J.E., Seiberg, M., Lewis, C., & Keeling,
R. (2003). Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social
norms marketing interventions to reduce college students’ heavy
alcohol use. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 484–494.
Werch, C.E., Pappas, D.M., Carlson, J.M., DiClemente, C.C., Chally,
P.M., & Sinder, J.S. (2000). Results of a social norm intervention
to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college
students. Journal of American College Health, 49, 85–92.
(RECEIVED 1/16/06; REVISION ACCEPTED 9/28/06;
FINAL MATERIALS RECEIVED 11/3/06)
Volume 18—Number 5